H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 2007

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to ensure that the land on the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs, West LA VA, campus is protected for the use of America's Veterans.

The bill would: require the VA Secretary to provide the Congressional Appropriations and Veterans Committees a comprehensive report regarding the master plan for the West LA VA facility and connected property.

The VA was required under Public Law 105-368 to develop a master plan for the West LA VA property.

If the VA has failed to developed the plan, the legislation requires it to complete a master plan prior to implementing any action based on the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative.

The VA would be prohibited from issuing any enhanced-use lease agreements for the West LA VA property until the master plan is completed and submitted to Congress.

Prevent the VA Secretary from implementing any portion of the master plan until 120 days after the submission of the plan to the Appropriations and Veterans Committees.

In addition, the Secretary would be expressly prohibited from pursuing development initiatives regarding the West LA VA property not relating to direct Veterans services unless explicitly authorized by Congress through legislation.

Direct Veterans services are defined in this legislation as any services ``directly related'' to maintaining the health, welfare, and support of Veterans.

Last year, the Senate approved similar language in the FY07 MILCON/VA Appropriations bill that required the VA to provide the Appropriations Committees a report on the master plan for the West LA VA Medical Center and connected land.

The fiscal year 2007 MILCON/VA Appropriations Act passed the Senate on November 18, 2006.

Unfortunately, all but 2 of the 11 Appropriations bills--including MILCON/VA--were ultimately packaged together in a Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 2007, and the language was never considered by the full Congress.

The bill I am introducing today is absolutely essential in light of a number of unacceptable actions that have previously been taken by the VA that, in my view, violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Last month, I joined with my colleagues Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Henry Waxman in writing a letter to VA Secretary James Nicholson strongly objecting to recent decisions by the VA relating to the West LA VA facility and land.

Over the past year alone, the VA has permitted the construction of a facility for the Fox Entertainment Group on the West LA VA property, and has approved a lease agreement with Enterprise Car Rental to operate on the campus.

In addition, the VA has allowed the Westside Shepherd of the Hill Church to rent a building on the property in which to hold its Sunday services and provided additional housing space for the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA).

The VA reportedly has also considered lease projects such as movie productions, a drive-in theather, a circus event, and a golf course.

This must be put to a stop and the legislation I introduce today would do just that.

For too long, commercial interests have trumped the needs of our Veterans.

These 400 acres of land were donated to the government in 1888 specifically for Veterans and should remain that way--just as then-VA Secretary Anthony Principi promised during a visit to Los Angeles in February 2002.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today along with Senator Boxer as cosponsor to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of expanding the Santa Monica National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley Corridor.

The Rim of the Valley Corridor is an example of a highly threatened habitat area, the Mediterranean chaparral ecosystem. Connecting to the adjacent Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests, the Corridor encircles the San Fernando Valley, La Crescenta, Simi, Conejo, and Santa Clarita Valleys, consisting of parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, Santa Susanna Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, and San Rafael Hills.

There is a great need for expanded parkland in southern California. While the Los Angeles metropolitan region has the second-largest urban concentration in the United States, the area has one of the lowest ratios of park-and-recreation-lands per thousand-population of any urban area in the country.

Since the creation of the Santa Monica Recreation Area in 1978, Federal, State, and local authorities have worked successfully together to create and maintain the highly successful Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, hemmed in on all sides by development.

With the passage of this legislation, Congress will hold true to its original commitment to preserve the scenic, natural, and historic setting of the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area.

With the inclusion of the Rim of the Valley Corridor in the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, greater ecological health and diversity will be promoted, particularly for larger animals like mountain lions, bobcats, and the golden eagle. By creating a single contiguous Rim of the Valley Trail, people will enjoy greater access to existing trails in the Recreational Area.

Within a National Recreation Area, the National Park Service is prohibited from exercising the powers of eminent domain, and private property may be purchased from voluntary sellers only.

The bill includes a provision directing the Department of the Interior to analyze any effects that a proposed expansion of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area will have on private land within or bordering the area. Any such effects will be thoroughly considered as the study moves forward.

After the study called for in this bill is complete, the Secretary of the Interior and Congress will be in a key position to determine whether all or portions of the Rim of the Valley Corridor warrant inclusion in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress, as it did last Congress. Congressman Adam Schiff plans to introduce companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his commitment to this issue.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this proposed legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize water recycling and other water supply projects by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Cucamonga Valley Water District. These projects will produce approximately 95,000 acre-feet of new water annually in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the United States, reducing the need for imported water from the Colorado River and northern California through the California Water Project.

The federal investment required is limited to approximately 10 percent of the projects' cost, or about $30 million.

This legislation is intended to be the companion to H.R. 122, sponsored by David Dreier, Grace Napolitano, Ken Calvert, Joe Baca, and Gary Miller.

This legislation has broad support and has already passed the House, and in fact similar legislation to H.R. 122 also passed the House of Representatives in each of the previous two Congresses.

It is time for this legislation to pass the Senate as well and be enacted into law. Environmental groups such as the Mono Lake Committee, Environmental Defense, Clean Water and Natural Resources Defense Council strongly support the water recycling and groundwater remediation projects in this bill. Business leaders such as Southern Cal Edison and Building Industry Association also support these projects.

The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative would authorize two project components. The first will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency--IEUA--and will produce approximately 90,000 acre feet of new water annually. The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District--CVWD--will produce an additional 5,000 acre feet of new water annually.

The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana--through the Fontana Water Company--Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga-- through the Cucamonga Valley Water District--and the Monte Vista Water District.

I want to say a few words about the importance of water recycling projects.

The development of recycled water can bring significant amounts of water ``on line'' in a relatively short period of time. Recycled water provides our State and region with the ability to ``stretch'' existing water supplies significantly and in so doing, minimize conflict and address the many needs that exist. According to the State of California's Recycled Water Task Force, water recycling is a critical part of California's water future with an estimated 1.5 million acre- feet of new supplies being developed over the next 25 years.

Water recycling is also a bipartisan initiative in California, as witnessed by the many Republican and Democratic House cosponsors of the House versions of the bill I introduce today.

Water recycling also has significant greenhouse gas reduction benefits. The greenhouse gas emission reductions attributed to local development and use of recycled water within Inland Empire Utilities Agency's service area is roughly 100,000 tons of CO2 equivalents per year.

With only a small percentage of the total recycled water available being used in Southern California, approximately 10 percent, there is a huge potential for additional energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions from aggressive development of recycled water supplies.

California is not the only State engaged in water recycling. Today, water recycling is an essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Tucson, EI Paso, San Antonio, Portland, and other western metropolitan areas.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill to help meet the West's water supply needs and to reduce our dependence on the Colorado River. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise, along with my Senate Cancer Coalition cochair, Senator Brownback, to introduce the National Cancer Act of 2007, a bipartisan blueprint for winning the war against cancer.

It includes: grants for targeted drug development; creating ``cancer quarterbacks'' in Medicare; Medicaid coverage for smoking cessation treatments; pilot projects for expanding colorectal cancer screening in underserved populations; continued research into the possible benefits of early detection for lung cancer; loan repayment assistance for cancer prevention researchers; incentives for research into drugs that

prevent cancer from developing and spreading in the first place; provisions to promote the collection and storage of tissue sample, to give researchers the tools they need to use genomic research to create individualized cures; promoting access to clinical trials, as well as investigational therapies for those who are terminally ill; addressing the health needs of the growing number of cancer survivors.

Just over 35 years ago, President Nixon signed into law the original National Cancer Act, creating the National Cancer Institute and making cancer research a priority of the Federal Government. This work has led to tremendous breakthroughs against cancer, including innovative drugs, treatments, and a better understanding of the factors that lead to cancer in the first place. Last year, death rates decreased for 11 of the 15 cancers most common in men, and 10 of the cancers most common in women.

Sixty-five percent of people diagnosed with cancer can now expect to survive at least 5 years. This is good news. But it is not enough. The cost of cancer, in both human and economic terms, remains staggering.

An estimated 1,399,790 Americans were diagnosed with some form of cancer last year.

Approximately 1 of 3 women will develop cancer at some point in her lifetime; for men, the risk is slightly less than 1 in 2.

The National Institutes of Health estimated the overall cost of cancer in 2005 at $209.9 billion.

The price of inaction is too steep. Cancer is, first and foremost, a disease of aging. About 76 percent of cancer cases are diagnosed in patients at age 55 or older. If no fundamental changes are made, the aging of the Baby Boom generation will bring a 20 percent increase in cancer diagnoses.

In the face of these challenges, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, with broad support in the cancer community, set the ambitious goal of ending death and suffering from cancer by 2015. This goal has generated unprecedented excitement and unity, with over 80 Members of the United States Senate signing a letter in support of the effort.

It is time to reexamine and reorient our Nation's cancer policy to meet this ambitious goal. This does not mean that cancer will be eradicated by 2015. As our population ages, cancer will not go away. But we can change the meaning of a cancer diagnosis, and that is what the 2015 goal is about.

Meeting this goal will take a comprehensive approach. It requires detecting cancer earlier, before it spreads and becomes harder to treat. It requires targeted therapies, capable of killing cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact. We must provide access to high quality cancer care for those who do get sick. We must also understand more about why people get cancer in the first place, and ways it can be prevented.

Our legislation takes a multifaceted approach to changing the very nature of a cancer diagnosis. The National Cancer Act of 2007 will do the following:

Authorize grants for the development of targeted drugs.

New drug therapies continue to lead us closer to the day in which cancer is a treatable, chronic condition controlled with a simple pill or injection. It has now been 5 years since the drug company Novartis won approval for Gleevec, a targeted drug that has saved the lives of countless patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, CML.

Gleevec demonstrates the promise of this new kind of drug therapy. It blocks the enzymes that help cancer cells grow and divide, leaving healthy cells untouched. When this drug was first introduced, CML patients who were near death recovered and left the hospital. Yet it could not be determined if their remission would last, or if long-term use of this revolutionary drug would prove safe.

We now know that Gleevec is fulfilling this early promise. Before the advent of this drug, CML patients would often suffer a relapse after 2 or 3 years. But a recent study of CML patients taking Gleevec has demonstrated a remarkable 89 percent survival rate after 5 years. The cancer progressed to a more serious stage in only 7 percent of patients during this time period, and only 5 percent were forced to discontinue treatment because of side effects.

These results suggest that patients may be able to stay on Gleevec indefinitely, keeping this formerly deadly cancer under control while leading full and productive lives.

Targeted therapies are now offering hope to patients with many different kinds of cancer: Herceptin for some breast cancers, Iressa for those with small cell lung cancer, Avastin for colorectal cancer. Avastin can extend survival by interfering with the growth of blood vessels that feed the tumor, literally starving it.

These drugs are the future of cancer research. We need more drugs like Gleevec, which transform cancer from a killer to a controllable health condition. This legislation would authorize NCI to make grants to further develop these treatments.

To help with the development of targeted drugs, the bill also calls for the establishment of a task force on surrogate endpoints and biomarkers. They are the mechanisms for measuring the efficacy of cancer treatment at the molecular level, allowing doctors to precisely gauge how a patient is reacting to a treatment, or if a cancer is progressing.

Developing biomarkers for different types of cancer is an essential step, and our bill will establish a program to develop the biomarkers with the most immediate clinical promise.

The bill will also create special reimbursements for coordinating physicians, or ``cancer quarterbacks'' in Medicare. Successful cancer treatment is increasingly complex, reaching across the entire spectrum of the medical profession. It can involve lab tests, CT-scans, surgery, chemotherapy, and a full team of specialists who offer this care. Many patients have no single physician who can guide them through the complicated and sometimes contradictory course of cancer treatment, no professional to advise them what is best.

This bill would require Medicare to pay oncology doctors or nurses to become the overall managers of patients' care, in effect providing every cancer patient with a ``cancer quarterback'' physician to help them coordinate care and make the necessary decisions.

This cancer quarterback can direct care in the manner that best meets the patient's needs, instead of focusing on only a small segment of his or her care.

This legislation requires that State Medicaid drug programs cover smoking cessation treatments in the same manner as all other approved therapies. I have long believed that we will not truly address the burden of cancer until we address tobacco use. I have asked all kinds of cancer experts about what we can do to stop death from cancer, and their answer is always the same: Stop tobacco use.

Tobacco causes 30 percent of cancer deaths and 1 in 5 of all deaths in the United States. It is the leading cause of preventable death. Smoking related costs total $167 billion annually.

According to the CDC, more than 70 percent of American smokers would like to quit. Studies indicate that tobacco use treatment, including smoking cessation aids, will double their chances of success.

Yet under current law, State Medicaid programs are exempted from providing coverage of smoking cessation agents in the same way as they provide coverage of other drugs. Other exemptions include fertility treatments, drugs to promote hair growth, and drugs for erectile dysfunction.

Simply put, smoking cessation aids, which are FDA approved and proven to be effective, do not belong on this list. Denying people access to treatments to help them break a deadly and expensive addiction is flawed policy.

Our bill will remove tobacco cessation products from this list of exemptions, leveling the playing field with other FDA approved products.

Our bill establishes pilot projects for expanding colorectal cancer screening for low-income, uninsured individuals. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program has proven very successful in providing low income women with access to potentially life saving screenings. It is now time to provide similar access to colorectal cancer screening.

The need is great. A 2006 study conducted by Northwestern University researchers found that only 7 percent of minority patients without regular

health care access at risk for developing colon cancer are being screened. A 2005 study of New York City residents found that those least likely to have been recommended colorectal screening are low- income or uninsured.

Early detection allows physicians to identify patients with pre- cancerous polyps, and treat them before cancer even develops. These pilot projects identify the best ways to provide access to this lifesaving care for those who are not currently receiving recommended screenings.

This bill will authorize continued research on the potential of CT scans to detect lung cancer early. before it becomes fatal. Despite all the promising advances against many types of cancer, lung cancer remains the Nation's leading cause of cancer death in both men and women. About 20,000 people who have never smoked are diagnosed with lung cancer each year, and this number is increasing.

We need to learn more about how to screen for lung cancer and detect it early, before it has advanced. There is much we need to learn before scientists can make a definitive recommendation about screening and its potential benefits for both smokers and non-smokers.

To help scientists learn more, this bill will authorize funding to provide CT scans to those with a history of heavy smoking. This further study will help determine whether this promising technology is indeed the method we need to make progress against the leading cancer killer.

This legislation expands the existing NIH loan repayment program to provide assistance to researchers who make a commitment to working on cancer prevention research. This will encourage the best and brightest to pursue work that will help us to better understand what causes cancer and how we can stop it from occurring.

The bill will encourage and support research into new drugs and treatments, called chemopreventatives, which can stop precancerous cells from becoming tumors. Decades of research has enabled physicians to prescribe medications to prevent serious illness, such as statin drugs to lower cholesterol, and drugs to treat high blood pressure before it leads to strokes.

Progress in drug development to stop cancer has been far more limited. The promise of this field was made clear when, last year, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, licensed Gardasil, a vaccine to stop the spread of cervical cancer. Gardasil protects against the two forms of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which causes approximately 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. This vaccine could virtually eliminate cervical cancer during the lifetime of our daughters and granddaughters.

We need more chemoprevention techniques like Guardasil to guard against other types of cancer. People at high risk for a specific type of cancer may one day take a daily pill to stop abnormal cells from progressing to full blown cancer. Though it will take a long time for these promises to become reality, this research is the future of cancer care.

In order to encourage this work, our legislation would grant Orphan Drug Act protections to treatments designed to treat high-risk conditions in individuals who have not yet been diagnosed with cancer, but if left untreated, face a high risk of developing cancer.

This research will require new resources in order to have the best chance of success. To build the foundations for success, our bill will encourage biospecimen collection.

Scientists are beginning to understand the significant role that genetics plays in the development of cancer. To encourage further study, scientists need access to a variety of tissue, blood, and other samples from both cancer patients and those who are healthy. Our bill codifies guidelines for the collection of these samples and requires that the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, draft a report examining potential payment systems for these activities.

We are on the cusp of an age of personalized medicine, in which a cancer patient's tumor can be analyzed to determine what type of treatment will be most effective. Patients will no longer undergo round after round of chemotherapy or radiation in the hopes of finding a treatment regime that works. Collecting and storing blood and tissue samples will provide our researchers with the materials they need to make these important discoveries.

Our bill will promote clinical trial enrollment. Patients willing to try these cutting edge cancer therapies as they emerge face a variety of obstacles. They, or their physicians, might not know what clinical trial opportunities exist. They may need to travel to a far away facility to participate. Our legislation requires the Director of the National Cancer Institute to create a clinical trials program, which includes: an outreach program, to assure that all patients, especially minorities, participate in trials; and a coordination program, to help patients with logistical challenges and the support costs of trial participation.

Our bill creates an oncology compassionate access program. No patient should lose a battle with cancer because bureaucratic hurdles denied him or her access to a potentially lifesaving therapy. Our bill provides for the creation of a new compassionate access program to speed access of investigational therapies for terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other available treatment options.

Our bill will address the needs of a growing number of cancer survivors. As cancer increasingly becomes a manageable, chronic condition, there will be an increasing number of cancer survivors confronting yet-unknown health challenges. Current cancer survivors number almost 10 million, and this number will only grow. This bill will: expand current cancer surveillance systems to track the health status of cancer survivors; implement a national cancer survivorship action plan, including post treatment health programs; require States to consider the needs of cancer survivors, and their families, in addition to current patients, when drafting their comprehensive cancer control plans.

Require the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, to report on their strategies, benchmarks, and progress in meeting the 2015 goal. This will allow Congress to adjust policy as necessary to ensure that the promise of ending death and suffering from cancer is realized.

The state of cancer care has changed drastically since 1971, and it is time that our Federal policies reflect these changes. The 2015 goal is ambitious, and it requires no less than ambitious legislation in response.

I urge you to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Collins and Snowe to introduce legislation that will significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from our Nation's transportation sector.

This bill would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from passenger vehicles and motor vehicle fuels by 22 percent below projected levels under business as usual by 2030. This reduction is equivalent to the removal of 662 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or taking over 108 million cars off the road for a year. This would save 3.6 million barrels of oil per day by 2030.

It would achieve these reductions by requiring a: 3 percent reduction in emissions from the motor vehicle fuel pool by 2015, with an additional 3 percent reduction every 5 years, and 30 percent reduction in vehicle tailpipe emissions by 2016, with additional reductions every 5 years.

Highway vehicles are responsible for 32 percent of annual U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary global- warming gas. And, motor vehicle emissions will continue to increase as more and more Americans purchase vehicles and the number of miles driven grows.

With more than 240 million motor vehicles on the road, producing 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, increasing our use of low carbon fuels is an essential part of a climate-safe transportation strategy.

So, the signs could not be clearer: It's time to sound the death- knell for the era of gas-guzzling motor vehicles. It is time to utilize improved vehicle technology and to increase access to cleaner, renewable fuels at the pump.

First, this bill will achieve this goal by increasing the availability of low carbon emitting fuels for motor vehicles.

We must start considering fuel emissions not only in terms of emissions produced at the tailpipe, but also in terms of the emissions generated by the production and transportation of fuels. The total emissions of a fuel,

from production to end-use, are known as the ``lifecycle emissions'' of a fuel.

Not all fuels are created equal in terms of emissions; in fact, not all fuels within a give fuel category are created equal.

For example, ethanol produced from corn emits only about 10 to 20 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy delivered compared to petroleum-based gasoline. In contrast, ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass achieves an 80 to 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy.

Electricity would also qualify as an alternative fuel under this bill. The lifecycle emissions of electricity produced by traditional coal-fired power plants will be far greater than that produced by wind or other zero-carbon electricity generation technologies.

By 2009, this bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to quantify the total lifecycle emissions of all motor vehicle fuels. The bill would also require EPA to develop a fuel labeling process to provide this information to consumers at the pump.

Armed with this information about the lifecycle emissions of different fuels, oil refiners and importers would be required to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of their entire fuel pool by 3 percent below projected levels by 2015. And, every 5 years thereafter, emissions would be cut by an additional 3 percent.

To help fuel providers meet the mandated emissions reductions in a cost-effective manner, the bill would establish a carbon-credit trading market.

This would reduce emissions from motor vehicle fuels by 10 percent below projected levels by 2030 and would increase the supply of low- carbon fuels such as biodiesel, E-85, hydrogen, electricity, and others.

Second, the bill would achieve reductions in transportation sector emissions by federalizing California's landmark tailpipe emissions standard. California passed a landmark law in 2002 that required a reduction in tailpipe emissions and was the first State in the country to do so. This would require automakers to reduce tailpipe emissions, such as carbon dioxide, by 30 percent by 2016. It will also require EPA to tighten the reductions every 5 years.

Combined, these provisions would achieve a 22 percent reduction in transportation sector emissions below projected levels by 2030.

Additional provisions in the bill mandate: auto manufacturers to optimize dual-fueled vehicles to improve their fuel economy when running on alternative fuels, and alternative fuel vehicles, and only alternative fuel vehicles, come with a green fuel cap. This would alert consumers that these vehicles can accept other fuels besides traditional gasoline.

Just as it is necessary to reduce emissions in the electricity and industrial sectors, it is equally necessary to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. This bill makes significant, yet feasible, strides to reduce emissions through upgrades in vehicle technology and the incorporation of lower lifecycle emission fuels into the motor vehicle fuel pool. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, for a long time in Washington, if you talked about a deadline or a timetable, the response from the President, from the administration, even from the Republican side of the aisle, was the same. When you talked about a specific end to this war, they argued: It endangers our troops.

I did not agree with that premise. In fact, I believed this was the only way to convince the Iraqis we were not going to stay forever. If they think the very best military in the world, the American military forces, will stay there indefinitely, there is no incentive for them to make the right decisions, the hard decisions to govern their own country.

Well, time has passed at great cost to our Nation. As of this morning, we have lost 3,361 of our best and brightest soldiers--3,361. The month of April was the deadliest month this year in Iraq: 104 American soldiers lost their lives. I think we all understand now that as each day passes, more American soldiers are in danger and, sadly, more will give their lives. So to wait for a month, two or three or four, is, sadly, to extend that period of time of danger.

Now we find from Republican leaders a new approach. No longer are they rejecting the idea of deadlines or timetables. In fact, they are starting to speak in more specific terms.

This is a quote from the Republican leader of the House, John Boehner, who said:

By the time we get to September or October, members are

going to want to know how well this is working, and if it

isn't, what's Plan B?

That, to me, sounds like a deadline of September or October.

Then, of course, our colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, said:

I do think this fall we have to see some significant

changes on the ground, in Baghdad and other surrounding

areas.

I think it is an indication that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hearing the same thing we hear when we go home: First, an immense pride in our men and women in uniform, pride as well in their families who have stood by them through this long struggle; an understanding of the sacrifices that are being made by our soldiers as well as those who love them so very much but, secondly, an understanding that this is a failed policy that the President is pursuing in Iraq.

This is the fifth year of this war. This war has lasted longer than World War II. It is now only exceeded in cost by the cost of World War II in today's dollars. It is an extremely expensive undertaking, first, in human life, with over 3,000 Americans dying, and then with thousands coming home injured, some very seriously injured, with traumatic brain injury and amputations.

Senator Murray of Washington has been a leader when it comes to the care for our returning soldiers and veterans. We know our system is breaking down and falling behind, increasing the sense of urgency I feel and many feel in Illinois, as I see them on the streets of Chicago and Springfield and all around my State. They understand this is a heavy cost we are paying.

When our friends on the Republican side of the aisle say all we need is maybe 4 or 5 more months, I hope they understand that time they are asking

for is time that will have a heavy price. They want us to buy some time for political purposes but at a heavy price.

We think, and I hope they will come to understand, we need to tell the Iraqis now they have the responsibility to govern and lead. If they fail, then American troops are not going to stay there indefinitely. Some worry when American troops leave, there may be an unstable situation in Iraq. That is entirely possible. That can happen if we leave in 10 months, 10 years, or 15 years.

They have to understand the responsibility of the future of Iraq lies in the hands of the Iraqis. We cannot put that burden on American soldiers and their families any longer. I am heartened by these statements from the Republican side that finally they understand we cannot stay there forever, that the policy of this administration has not succeeded, that we owe it to soldiers and their families to treat them humanely, to let them know they will be coming home to a hero's welcome soon.

Our colleagues, Senator Jim Webb and Carl Levin, as well as Jack Reed, have spoken out about the readiness of our troops, too. I worry about that. As the President has extended this war, far beyond what anyone ever dreamed of, those who voted for that authorization of force, as he has extended this war, have put pressure on our soldiers beyond anything we could have imagined.

We have extended the tours of duty for National Guard members to the longest period of time since World War II. We now know many of our soldiers are asked to stay on an additional 3 months after they have served 12. We know when they come home, they do not receive the rest they were promised, the time with their family. They are quickly reactivated and sent into battle.

This has to have an impact on morale. It certainly has a negative impact on their families. So I believe as we talk about how this war is to be waged and what the next stage will be, regardless of what our plan may be, it has to include readiness and a commitment to these troops. I think it is important that we say to the President: Don't send a single soldier into harm's way or into combat unless they have had the time to rest, unless they have been retrained and equipped, unless they are prepared to go to battle with all of the forces they need to come home safely.

Shortchanging our soldiers is not a strategy that we should follow in Iraq. Let's come up with a plan to start bringing these troops home. We sent one to the President last week. He, in a press conference, told the American people he was going to reject it. We haven't heard anything back from him since then. But, in the meantime, many members of his own party have decided it is time for them to finally speak up. We welcome them. We need them. We need them particularly on this supplemental bill.

Mr. President, if a handful of Republican Senators will now cross the aisle and join us, we can have a positive impact on changing this failed policy in Iraq. We can finally stand as one in a bipartisan way and say there is a better way; that the Iraqis cannot take long vacations while the members of their parliament relax as our soldiers risk their lives. We have to tell the Iraqis we are not going to stay indefinitely.

When leaders such as Mr. Boehner of Ohio speak of plan B, just remember what the B stands for. The B stands for bring our soldiers home. That is what we need to start doing in an orderly, sensible way as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, in the coming weeks the Senate will again consider legislation to reform our broken immigration system. The Presiding Officer has been personally and deeply involved in this issue since coming to the Senate. I thank him for his leadership.

I think we all understand the challenge is substantial. If we want to solve the problem, we need a comprehensive approach that is tough but fair. We should improve border security by increasing manpower and deploying new technology. We should enforce the law against employers who are hiring millions of undocumented workers. And we need a realistic, honest approach to the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live and work in our country illegally.

Most importantly, we must ensure that immigration reform legislation protects the American economy and American workers as well.

I am concerned about the H-1B visa program as it is currently structured. I am afraid it is being abused by foreign companies to deprive qualified Americans of good jobs.

To address this problem, Senator Grassley and I have introduced S. 1035, the H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud Abuse Prevention Act of 2007. This is a bipartisan bill. It would overhaul the H-1B and L-1 visa programs to protect American workers and crack down on unscrupulous employers.

The H-1B visa program was designed to allow employers to attract and hire high-skilled foreign workers with specialized knowledge. H-1B visas are probably best known for their use in technology to import computer engineers and programmers.

I can't tell you how many leaders in industry, including one this afternoon, come into my office and say: We absolutely need H-1B visas. We can't find enough people with specialized education for our businesses. If you won't allow us to bring these workers in from overseas, we are going to be facing the possibility of taking our production facilities overseas where they live.

It is a compelling argument. I understand it on its face. But let me explain some of the problems with the current system and why Senator Grassley and I believe the system needs to be changed.

Supporters claim the goal of the H-1B program is to help the American economy by allowing U.S. companies to hire needed foreign workers. The reality is that H-1B visas are being used to facilitate the outsourcing of American jobs to other countries. It seems counterintuitive that a visa that allows people to come into the United States could lead to jobs being outsourced overseas, but when you hear my illustrations, you will understand the conclusion.

A recent expose in the International Herald Tribune disclosed that 8 of the top 10 H-1B visa applicants last year were outsourcing firms with major operations in one country--India. So in many cases it wasn't the American high tech company using the H-1B visa that was given this opportunity but, rather, a firm, more likely in India than any other country, that was given the authority to use H-1B visas to send workers into the United States. The Herald Tribune concluded:

As Indian outsourcing companies have become the leading

consumers of the [H-1B] visa, they have used to it further

their primary mission, which is to gain the expertise

necessary to take on critical tasks performed by companies in

the United States and perform them in India at a fraction of

the cost.

According to this report, the Indian Government has been lobbying hard for the United States Government to increase the number of H-1B visas. Kamal Nath, the Indian Commerce Minister, was very blunt when he said recently that the H-1B visa ``has become the outsourcing visa.'' He concluded:

If at one point you had X amount of outsourcing and now you

have a much higher quantum of outsourcing, you need that many

more visas.

That is a very candid statement by this commerce minister in India. It should give us pause as we think about this program, what it was designed to do and what it is actually doing.

In other words, the Indian Government wants more H-1B visas so Indian companies can outsource more American jobs to India.

Let me be clear. India is a valuable American partner in commerce, diplomacy, and many other endeavors. Indians who have come to the United States have made immeasurable contributions to the benefit of our country in so many ways. I trust them as great friends. But some in India today understand that we have a weakness in our visa system and are using it for their own economic advantage.

It is not surprising the Indian Government is advocating on behalf of Indian companies. The American Government should advocate on behalf of American companies. I don't criticize the Indian Government for doing that. But we should expect the same from our Government for our workers. We need to stand up to make sure American workers don't lose their jobs to outsourcing because of H-1B visas.

H-1B supporters claim we need more H-1B visas to stop American jobs from being outsourced. That was the logic behind H-1B visas. It appears the opposite is true. Under the current system, more H-1B visas will mean more outsourcing.

Let me give an example. Indian outsourcing company Wipro was No. 2 on the list of top applicants for H-1B visas in the year 2006. Wipro has more than 4,000 employees in the United States, and approximately 2,500 of them are here on H-1B visas. It is pretty clear that when it comes to Wipro's American operation, the majority of the workers are here on H-1B visas. Every year Wipro brings 1,000 new temporary workers here from India, while they send another 1,000 U.S. trained workers back to India. This is essentially an outsourcing factory.

Here is what the Herald Tribune concluded:

Rather than building a thriving community of experts and

innovators in the United States, the Indian firms seek to

funnel work--and expertise--away from the country.

It is hard to believe, but it is perfectly legal to use the H-1B visa program for outsourcing. A foreign outsourcing company with a U.S. office can use H-1B visas to import workers from their home country, train the workers in the United States, and then outsource them back to their home country to populate businesses competing with the United States. They are not required to make any efforts to recruit American workers for these jobs. In fact, they can explicitly discriminate against American workers who apply for the same jobs by recruiting and hiring only workers from their home country.

Here is what the Labor Department says about the current law:

H-1B workers may be hired even when a qualified U.S. worker

wants the job, and a U.S. worker can be displaced from the

job in favor of a foreign worker.

Is that what we had in mind with H-1B visas? That certainly wasn't the way it was explained to me. In fact, under current law, only employers who employ H-1B visa holders as a large percentage of their U.S. workforce are required to attempt to recruit American workers before bringing in foreign workers.

Senator Grassley and I have taken a look at this system. We both reject the notion that what is wrong with the H-1B program is that we need more visas. We have to look at the system that generates these visas and the way they are used. The legislation we have introduced would overhaul the H-1B program, protecting American workers first, and stopping H-1Bs from being exploited as outsourcing visas.

Here are the highlights. First and foremost, we would require all employers who want to hire an H-1B worker to attempt to hire an American worker first. Employers would also be prohibited from using H- 1B visas to displace American workers. You can't fire an American and turn around and appeal to our Government for an H-1B visa to bring someone in from overseas to replace that worker.

This is an important principle. We have to make it clear that companies doing business in the United States have to give first priority to American workers.

Our bill would require that before an employer may hire an H-1B worker, the employer must first advertise the job opening to American workers for 30 days on the Department of Labor Web site.

Some companies that abuse the H-1B visa program are so brazen, they say ``no Americans need apply'' in their job advertisements. Hundreds of such ads have been posted on line. They say things such as ``H-1B visa holders only'' or ``we require candidates for H-1B from India.''

Is that what we have in mind, to create this perverse discrimination against American workers? That isn't the way it was explained to me. Our H-1B reform bill would prohibit this blatant discriminatory practice.

There is another serious problem with the H-1B visa program. Federal oversight is virtually nonexistent. Under current law there are many roadblocks to effective Government enforcement. For example, the Department of Labor does not have the authority to open an investigation of an employer suspected of abusing the H-1B program unless the Department receives a formal complaint, even if the employer's application is clearly fraudulent. Even if there is a complaint, the Labor Secretary--and this is something that is almost unique in our law--must personally authorize the opening of an investigation.

These restrictions in the law are aggravated by lax Government enforcement. According to the Department of Homeland Security's own Inspector General, Homeland Security has violated the law by approving thousands of H-1B applications in excess of the annual cap of 65,000. The Government Accountability Office found that the Labor Department approves over 99.5 percent of H-1B petitions it receives, including those that on their face clearly violate the law.

There is virtually no Government oversight of potential abuse in this system. The Labor Department's inspector general has concluded that the H-1B program is ``highly susceptible to fraud.'' Remember, this program was designed to help the American economy, to help create jobs and prosperity in our country. Our Government is not even watching it closely to make sure that fraud isn't being perpetrated.

The bill Senator Grassley and I are proposing would give the Government more authority to conduct employer investigations and streamline the investigative process. Currently, the Labor Department is only authorized to review applications for ``completeness and obvious inaccuracies.'' Our bill would give the Labor Department more authority to review employers' H-1B applications for ``clear indicators of fraud or misrepresentation of material fact.''

Our bill would authorize the Labor Department to conduct random audits of any company that uses the H-1B program and require the Department of Labor to conduct annual audits of companies that employ large numbers of H-1B workers. We would also increase the penalties for companies that violate H-1B visa rules and authorize the hiring of 200 additional Government investigators to oversee and enforce the H-1B program.

Last month, the government began accepting H-1B visa petitions for Fiscal Year 2008. In the first 24 hours, the government received 150,000 petitions for 65,000 slots, supposedly for the whole year. Based on last year's statistics, it is likely that the top petitioners for visas were companies from India. They understand the system. They understand how to make this profitable. But this is not the way it has been described to most Members of Congress. It certainly isn't consistent with our intent.

There is another program I wish to mention, the L-1 visa. The L-1 visa allows companies to transfer certain employees from foreign facilities to the United States for up to 7 years.

Experts have concluded that some employers use the L-1 program to evade restrictions on the H-1B program, because the L-1 program doesn't have an annual cap and doesn't include even minimal protections for American workers. As a result, efforts to reform the H-1B program are unlikely to succeed if the L-1 program is not overhauled at the same time.

The bill Senator Grassley and I have prepared would reform the L-1 program. We would establish for the first time whistleblower protections for those who call attention to employer abuses of L-1 programs, and for the first time we would authorize the Government to investigate and audit L-1 employers suspected of violating the law.

Before we are persuaded to increase the number of H-1B visas, we have to reform the program to protect American workers first and to stop H- 1Bs from being used as outsourcing visas that send jobs and business away from America. That is what our bill would do, and that is what Senator Grassley and I will be pushing for as the Senate considers comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

I know this immigration debate is contentious, controversial, and some think it is politically dangerous, but it is long overdue. The current immigration system in America has failed us.

We now have upwards of 800,000 undocumented immigrants who come across the borders each year. That has to change. We have to reach a point where we have control of our borders. Some of the measures that have been suggested during the course of the debate I think are extreme. We don't have to move in that direction.

I recently met with Senators from Mexico who were visiting the Capital last week and encouraged them to join with us in a joint effort between the United States and Mexico to police the border, to try to make sure there is less exploitation of people who are coming across for jobs or for moving drugs or contraband--whatever the reason may be. I think more cooperation would go a long way between our two countries.

We also need to be sensitive and cognizant of the burden facing many employers in this country. If someone presents themselves, in downstate Illinois in a meat-packing plant, with a name and a Social Security number and a local address, what is the responsibility of the employer today? It certainly isn't to launch a full-scale investigation. If the papers presented to that employer appear to be legal on their face, most employers will hire the person. They may learn later on that the documents were fraudulent.

How can we change that system? I think we need to move toward some form of identification that is reliable so the person carrying the card who is here in a legal and temporary employment status can prove their identity to the employer, so that the system is able to police itself more.

We also need to deal with the reality of 12 million undocumented people currently here. I know all about these folks because almost 90 percent of our casework in our Senate office deals with immigration. I have met many of them and their families. We need to find a fair way to hold them accountable, to make certain that over a period of time they can earn their way into legal status. They have to have a job and no criminal record; they have to pay a fine, pay their taxes, learn English, whatever it takes, to make sure that over a period of time, it is clear they have every intention to be a citizen of this country, and a good one. In that way, they can earn their way, over many years, into a position of citizenship or permanent legal status.

This country is great because of the immigrants who came here. My mother was one of them. I am very proud of that fact and happy to serve in a State

that would elect me and in a State that has so many immigrants who can tell the same story I have to tell.

I think the immigrant spirit is something that has made America a unique country. I think of people who, in their foreign lands, get up one day and say: We are not going to take it anymore. We are coming to America. We have a better chance. That is the kind of get-up-and-go we like to see that has made this a much better country.

I think we can capture that spirit in real, comprehensive immigration reform and avoid abuses such as those I have just described with the H- 1B program and at the end of the day have a program and a law supported by both political parties that will really move us forward as a Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I want to take a few moments this afternoon to follow up on my remarks of last evening about concerns I have involving the immigration process that is ongoing in the Senate and what Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, has indicated he plans to do.

I absolutely believe a framework exists for us to develop comprehensive immigration reform that can be worthy of the American people, to create a lawful system of immigration that will work. It will be difficult in a number of areas, but we can do that. A framework is being discussed, I know, because I have seen the PowerPoint presentations and some of the other discussions about it. A framework exists that could lead to effective immigration reform. There is no doubt that this Nation needs comprehensive immigration reform. The whole system is broken. Nothing about it works. The legal system is an embarrassment to us as a nation and a source of frustration to the American people. They rightly are concerned about it, and politicians don't seem to be. That is why we have had a problem for so long, and frustration and anger gets built up. People sometimes call in to radio stations and say things they shouldn't say that are unkind. A lot of it is a direct response to a failure of the Congress and the executive branch to do what is required to create a lawful system of immigration. For Heaven's sake, don't we all agree with that concept, a lawful system of immigration?

What interests should it serve? It should serve the national interest, the American interest. I asked Secretary Chertoff of Homeland Security and Secretary Gutierrez of Commerce at a hearing of the Judiciary Committee not long ago, what should a lawful system of immigration do? Should it not serve the national interest? They said: Yes, sir.

Professor Borjas, a Cuban refugee, at Harvard has written a book on immigration. He said: If you tell me what interest you wish to serve, I can help you draft an immigration policy that will work. For example, if you say it should be the national interest, I can help you achieve that. If you want to serve the interest of poor people around the world, I can help achieve that. He basically said in his book ``Heaven's Door,'' we could serve poor people around the world by just letting them all in. That would be in their interest. We know that. In 2000, we had 11 million people apply for 50,000 lottery slots. The names are drawn out of a hat randomly. Only 50,000 are drawn out a year. We had 11 million apply for those slots.

We have to look at the basics. More people want to come to this country than we can accept, and those whom we accept should be based on what is in our interest. How much more simple can it be than that? I submit that is a moral and legitimate basis.

We always have a humanitarian component to immigration. I would not reduce that. About 16 percent of those who come, thereabouts, are for humanitarian reasons. I think we will always want to have that available for people who are persecuted or otherwise need humanitarian relief. Fundamentally, the rest of our program ought to serve the national interest.

This is what has happened. There are supposedly bipartisan discussions going on--and I know they are going on--to try to take the framework that has been agreed on by the President, Cabinet members, and some Members and to flesh that out and develop an immigration policy. That hasn't reached fruition. I understand some of the leaders on the Democratic side have walked away. They are not prepared to follow through on the overall agenda item for a given area, this framework. When you start writing down the words that will actually effectuate what you promise to do, then people start backing off.

I have said a number of times on the floor that we have a great deal of interest in immigration reform, except that we need a lawful system which will work. If it is a system that will actually work, we find immediately people start objecting.

Senator Reid has said these negotiators--I sometimes want to call them masters of the universe; I don't know who selected them--are meeting here and they are deciding the fate of American immigration. I want to say, well, let's see what they produce. I have told my constituents I hope they will discuss it, and maybe some agreement can be reached, one I could support. But I

promised my constituents--and every Senator ought to make this commitment--that I am going to read that bill. Just because people have great sounding words, if you don't read the words carefully and what they will actually mean in the effort to enforce immigration law, then you don't know what you are going to get. You are going to end up as we did in 1986, with a program that was an utter failure. The one we had last year would never have worked. It would have been a disastrous failure. It had no chance of being successful or ever achieving the ideas it purported.

Senator Reid apparently is unhappy. He has the power, as the Democratic leader, to call up any piece of legislation he wants to call up. He has said: I am not happy with the speed of this. He has said he is going to call up, under the power of the majority leader under rule XIV, last year's bill, and that this will be on the floor. Then he will want the negotiators to continue to negotiate, and maybe they will figure out what would be better. Then he might substitute this newly negotiated bill that hasn't been written yet--nobody has seen a word of it--and then we will vote. That will make everybody happy.

Let me say this, with all sincerity: The American people know immigration is a big issue. It is an important issue; it really is. It says a lot about the nature of this country. Are we going to be a country that the world knows has laws that are never enforced, that our immigration policies make a mockery of the law, as they do today? Will we continue to see people all over the world get the idea in their heads--correct today, basically--that if they can just get into America, sooner or later we will make them citizens and give them everything, even if they came illegally? Is that the kind of message we want to send?

Senator Reid has said he is going to bring up last year's bill. He also indicated that after last year's bill is introduced and maybe a compromise would be reached. Maybe they would substitute this compromise as a new bill which we have never seen before, nor the words in it.

Let me tell my colleagues, an immigration bill is not an itty-bitty thing. An immigration bill consists of a lot of pages. A group of us, about 15 of us, wrote to the majority leader and asked that we have 7 days--I thought that was way too short--to read the bill. Isn't that pathetic? The immigration bill last year was 700-plus pages. Seven hundred pages. This never before seen compromise version may be longer. At least last year's bill came out of the Judiciary Committee, and we had a chance to argue over it in there, although the train ran right through the Judiciary Committee and it ran through--basically through the floor of the Senate. But we began to read it before it was over, and I remember making a speech down here, several speeches, pointing out 17 loopholes in that bill, fatal flaws in the legislation. But anyway, it passed, but the House refused to even consider it.

Based on what was in the New York Times and Rollcall or The Hill or one of the publications, the plan would then presumably be for Senator Reid to bring up last year's bill, which is unthinkable, in my view. It was fatally flawed. We will stay on that bill for some time, and then perhaps they will plop on it a substitute and take out all or parts of last year's bill and substitute an entirely new bill, 600, 700 or 800 pages, and then we will vote on it. That will be good for the masters of the universe, you see, because when you do that, there would not be time for the American people or for Lou Dobbs or Rush Limbaugh to find out what is in it and to tell the American people what is in it so they can get mad about it. That is basically what it is about. They want to slide it through with the least possible time to discuss it. I think that is irresponsible. It is wrong.

We should spend plenty of time on this legislation. We should go to the American people with honesty and integrity and tell them: Some of the things you want to do, Mr. and Mrs. America, we can't do. We are not going to be able to make immigration come out exactly like you would want it or exactly like I would want it. We are going to have to reach a compromise, but we understand we have a commitment to you, and that commitment is to create a system that will work in the future.

But I am worried about it because from what I am hearing, the system seems to be moving in a way that is going to create an opportunity to vote on a completely unseen immigration bill--nobody has read it except a little group--and move it through this Senate. Now, remember, the bill that passed last year was a bad piece of legislation, but it did pass this Senate. People thought it would die in the House, and sure enough, it did die in the House and it was never considered. They wouldn't even look at it. But I am not sure that is going to happen this time.

So we may have this plan in the works, and it will work something akin to this: Well, we spend 2 or 3 days talking about immigration, burning time and filibustering, filing cloture on a motion to proceed, and we get on the bill for a day or two and then all of a sudden a new bill comes on and in a day or two, it is passed. Hardly anybody knows what is in it or has had a chance to read it. Then it goes to the House of Representatives, where the Democratic majority now has a 15 seat, 16 seat or so majority over there; some of the Republicans would clearly be in favor of whatever passed out of the Senate. They don't have any way to delay votes over there, so the bill could be brought up and passed, the same bill, without any amendment. That could happen. Then it goes to the President and he signs it and then we will find out 2, 3 or 4 years from now whether it works.

I don't think it is going to work. I am worried about it. I am worried about it. I am worried there is not a commitment among the executive branch to enforce the immigration laws.

Anybody who would like to be elected President--the new executive branch leader has a commitment to ensuring a lawful system of immigration. That is all the American people want. They are not saying they don't want any immigrants in America.

So I am saying this because I am concerned this is where we are headed. I think it is unhealthy for the Senate. If we do that, we would have failed in an august responsibility. This is the body that is supposed to let the passions cool, where Senators look over important issues, think them through, and then make a decision on them. Also, the delay and the slowdown that goes on in the Senate is helpful so the American people can be advised on what their representatives are actually doing. So I am worried about it, and Senator Reid's strategy is frightening to me.

So let me repeat: I believe the framework that has been mentioned for the drafting of a comprehensive immigration reform bill actually has the potential to be successful. But based on my experience in the 10 years I have been in the Senate and the debate we have seen on immigration, I am inclined to believe they will have positive-sounding words on the headlines in big print, but the real language will not effectuate the promises they make or the goals they set. We could end up with no progress whatsoever. We could end up with amnesty and no enforcement in the future.

That is what happened in 1986. If you remember, in 1986, they said there are probably a million people in the country illegally. The system was not working. We had to do something, so we should grant amnesty to the people who came illegally, contrary to law, and then we would develop a new system in the future so that this would be the amnesty to end all amnesties. There would be no more amnesties. Well, 3 million people showed up to take advantage of it rather than 1 million people, and in the 20-plus years--21 years--since, we now have found in our country an estimated 12 million to 20 million people here illegally. So now we want to, I guess, give amnesty again on a promise that we will have a system that will work in the future. But the American people, you see, are cynical about it. They are not comfortable with us anymore on this subject, and frankly they are right to be cynical. Because there are a lot of special interests out there who are asking for what is in their interests but not what is in the national interests. It is time for us to consider what is in the national interests and do the right

thing on immigration. I firmly believe we will do a better job of writing a bill that will work, a bill that will serve our national interests, that will create a lawful immigration system, if the American people know what is going on, because that is what they want.

The American people have been consistently right on this issue. Their instincts have been right consistently. Oh, there are some nutty folks out here who are mean spirited, there is no doubt about that, but they represent a very small number. The basic feeling of the American people is sound on immigration and has been. It is the Congress and the executive branches that have failed them for 50 years. We don't have to continue to fail the American people. We have a responsibility to make it work, and I am hopeful that in the discussions for the first time with Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez helping behind the scenes to develop some plans that would actually work, we might even get this thing done. There is some possibility. I wouldn't have believed it, but now I am beginning to think it is possible.

But if at the last minute the special interest groups who seem to have dominated last year get their way, we would not be able to pass the bill we can be proud of. We would not pass a bill that will work, and we will be back in 10 years, 15 years, 20 years from now, dealing with another crisis.

So I will not go on anymore about it. I will mention what the framework, as I understood it, contained, that these PowerPoint presentations that were shown around and got leaked to the press, it has real improvement in border enforcement. We need that. That is essential. If you are serious about immigration, you want border enforcement. It set up as a goal a very effective job workplace enforcement, something that could actually work, using biometric identifying cards, helping the businesses and telling them exactly what they need to do so they can't be prosecuted or sued for doing something wrong. They are told exactly what to do and what will work. We can make the workplace cease to be the magnet for illegal jobs. That is very important, and it can be done. We need to deal compassionately and realistically with the people who are here illegally, but I don't believe that someone who broke the law in our country should be given every single benefit that we give to those who come lawfully. We will have to wrestle with that, and nobody is going to be happy, I am sure, with the way that comes out. That is the way it is with any big piece of legislation.

We need a genuine temporary seasonal worker program that is separate and apart from the program that would allow people to come into the country on a citizenship track. On the basic entry, citizenship entry into the United States, we need to be far more similar to Canada, which has a merit-based, skill-based system that evaluates applicants on what they bring to Canada: Do you speak English? Do you have an education? Do you have skills that Canada needs? It is a skill-based point system. It is objective and fair, and it serves the Canadian interests, and they are very happy with it. So is Australia, so is New Zealand, and I think the United Kingdom is also moving forward in this direction. A merit-based point system can actually be a framework for success. I understand that is being discussed. We do not need to promote such a framework, and then vote on a bill that doesn't create the merit-based point system when you read the fine print. That would be a failure.

So those are my concerns, and I will object with every ability I have, I will utilize every tool I have to ensure that whatever bill hits this floor, that Senators and the American people have time to evaluate it and an opportunity to know what is in it. But there are ways that this time and opportunity can be denied if the leadership is determined and can get the support. We could deny the American people that right, and it would be wrong to do so.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity today to introduce an important piece of legislation to improve the ability of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide medical care for our Nation's Armed Forces and veterans. We are currently finishing up a debate in the Senate on additional war time funding for Iraq. As in past years, we are trying to mitigate the damage caused by the failure to properly plan for and manage the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall. I have spoken many times about how damaging this lack of planning has been to our efforts in Iraq and to our standing in the world.

For the past two months, the spotlight has shone on another administration failure in this war: the shameful conditions our wounded soldiers face as outpatients navigating the military health system when they return from Iraq or Afghanistan. This is another example of gross mismanagement and a strained system. To alleviate the strain on this system, I am offering legislation today--the Effective Care for the Armed Forces and Veterans Act--to improve the care that members of the Armed Forces and veterans receive at Walter Reed and other military medical facilities.

The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that some of the reasons for concern at Walter Reed do not occur in the future. As the living conditions for outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center indicate, moving to private contracts for maintenance at military medical facilities can cause problems. After a private contract was awarded for maintenance and upkeep of buildings on the campus of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, a maintenance crew of approximately 300 was whittled down to 50 by the time the contract went in to effect. Many of the terrible living conditions in Building 18 that we read about in the Washington Post were a direct result of delays in building repair and maintenance because of a shortage in manpower. To prevent this situation from occurring again, this legislation calls for public- private competitions of maintenance services at military medical complexes to stop while our country is engaged in military conflicts. It also calls for a General Accountability Office review of contracting-out decisions for basic maintenance work at military facilities.

Other problems discovered at Walter Reed are directly attributable to shortages resulting from pressures to cut budgets for military medical services. These cuts cannot be tolerated at a time when military medical services are needed to treat servicemembers who have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, this legislation would require medical command budgets to be equal to or exceed the prior year amount while the nation is involved in a major military conflict or war.

Another issue that the conditions at Walter Reed brought up is whether or not the facility should be closed as the Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended. The Commission recommended building new, modern facilities at the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda and at Fort Belvoir to improve the overall quality of care and access to care in this region. Military leaders have indicated that the planned closure has limited their ability to attract needed professionals to jobs at Walter Reed and there have been concerns raised whether adequate housing for the families of the wounded has been properly planned. To deal with that, this legislation requires the Department of Defense to submit to Congress within one year a detailed plan that includes an evaluation of the following: the desirability of being able to guarantee professional jobs in the D.C. area for two years or more following the closure in order to foster a stable workforce; detailed construction plans for the new facilities and for new family housing; and the costs and benefits of building all of the needed medical treatment, rehabilitation, and housing before a single unit is moved.

Another major problem and source of frustration for injured soldiers is the length of time it takes to receive a disability determination. In order to hasten the disability determination process, we need to ensure that the Department of Defense has information systems capable of communicating with those in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA has been a leader in implementing electronic medical record keeping, but we have to improve the capability of the Department of Defense to send electronic medical records to the VA to speed up the disability determination process. Making the disability determination system more efficient can reduce the stress on the soldiers and their families going through the determination process.

Caseworkers are also critical. They schedule appointments and make sure wounded servicemembers get the rehabilitative and follow-up care they need. As more and more soldiers and marines come home wounded, many military caseworkers are overwhelmed. To improve the care given to servicemembers, this legislation requires a minimum ratio of case managers to patients of 1 to 20, that case managers have contact with recovering servicemembers at least once a week, and that case managers be properly trained on the military's disability and discharge systems so they can better assist patients with their paperwork.

Currently, many combat veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have service-related mental health issues like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Many have labeled TBI the ``signature injury'' of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. It is estimated that as many as 10 percent of those serving or who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have brain injuries. That

would mean about 150,000 of the 1.5 million soldiers and marines who have served in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom have suffered a brain injury. In many cases, these injuries are not diagnosed because there is not an external wound. Depending on the severity of these injuries, returning soldiers can require immediate treatment or not have symptoms show up until several years later. This legislation calls for every returning soldier to be screened for TBI. While the VA has announced plans to do this, it needs to happen in active-duty military medical facilities too. In addition, the legislation calls for a study on the advisability of treating TBI as a presumptive condition in every service's disability evaluation system, as well as the VA disability evaluation system.

We often hear about the 25,000 soldiers and marines who have been wounded in these wars--but that figure grossly underestimates the demand that the VA health care system faces. Since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001, more than 1.5 million soldiers have been deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations. Of these, 630,000 are now veterans and, according to the Department of Defense, more than 205,000 have already received medical treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs. A recent Harvard study on the long-term costs of treating these new veterans estimates that by 2012 more than 643,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan will be using the VA system, an almost three-fold increase of what the system faces now. With a significant backlog of claims currently existing, the system is in desperate need of an upgrade. To address this concern, my legislation directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a plan for the long-term care needs for veterans for the next 50 years.

It is our highest obligation to heal the hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who will bear the physical and emotional scars of these wars for the rest of their lives. Those of us who have the privilege of serving in Congress must act now to improve the medical care we provide to our Armed Forces and veterans.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing The American Automobile Industry Promotion Act of 2007 to jump-start next generation battery technology development in the United States and extend incentives to American-made highly efficient vehicles.

This legislation authorizes $100 million a year for 5 years to advance new battery technology--an amount double the administration's current budget request. On a national and international level, we must do whatever it takes to help our domestic auto manufacturers remain competitive.

Right now, the Japanese dominate the market for lithium ion batteries because they invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing this technology and in supporting their domestic industry. And, the Koreans and the Chinese are not far behind. American auto manufacturers are playing catch-up and we need to move quickly.

Specifically, I am proposing to support the development of advanced electric components, systems and vehicles, by providing funds for battery research to national laboratories, small businesses, and institutes of higher learning. The bill will also establish, through a competitive selection process, an Industry Alliance of private, U.S. based, for-profit firms whose primary business is battery development. The Industry Alliance would be an advisory resource on short and long term battery technology development.

The new research initiative will have four major areas of focus: (1) Research and Development including battery technology, high-efficiency charging systems, high-powered drive-train systems, control systems and power train development, and nanomaterial technology for battery and fuel cell systems. (2) Demonstration. The initiative also creates a demonstration program which would devote resources toward demonstration, testing and evaluation of hybrid electric vehicles for many different applications including military, mass market passenger and SUV vehicles. (3) Education. The initiative will support curriculum development in secondary, high school, as well as higher education institutions that focus on electric drive systems and component engineering. (4) Testing. Finally, the initiative would work with the EPA to develop testing and certification procedures for criteria pollutants, fuel economy, and petroleum use in vehicles.

In addition to research and development for the lithium ion battery, the American Automobile Industry Promotion Act will also set a national standard for biodiesel, a cleaner-burning fuel made from natural and renewable sources; and expand tax credit eligibility for consumers who purchase more fuel-efficient diesel vehicles. Today's diesels are cleaner than their predecessors, are in compliance with EPA emissions standards, and are 30 percent more fuel efficient than an equivalent gasoline engine. Specifically, the bill expands the emissions requirements to qualify for a tax credit for various weight diesel vehicles, increasing the number of American-manufactured more fuel efficient diesel vehicles that qualify. This provision would expire in four years, at which time all highly efficient vehicles will have to meet higher emissions standards to qualify for the tax credit.

Now is the time to act. It's not too late, but we do not have the luxury of waiting. If we are ever to be truly competitive in the global auto market and free from our dependence on foreign oil, we must move forward on all fronts.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I introduce today with my colleagues Senators Specter, Brownback, and Leahy the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007, which takes direct aim at reducing recidivism rates by improving the transition of offenders from prison back into the community. As this bill reflects, preventing recidivism is not only the right thing to do, it makes our communities safer and it saves us money.

Today, we have over two million individuals in our Federal and State prisons and millions more in local jails. Our Federal and State prisons will release nearly 650,000 of these offenders back into our communities this year. A staggering \2/3\ of released State prisoners will be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release.

It's not difficult to see why. These ex-offenders face a number of difficult challenges upon release. The unemployment rate among former inmates is as high as 60 percent; 15-27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon release; and 57 percent of Federal and 70 percent of State inmates used drugs regularly before prison. This addiction and dependency often continues during incarceration.

Unless we address these problems, these individuals will commit hundreds of thousands of serious crimes after their release, and our communities will bear the human and economic cost. If we are going to reduce recidivism and crime, we simply have to make concerted, common- sense efforts now to help ex-offenders successfully reenter and reintegrate into their communities.

The Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007 confronts head-on the dire situation of prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of basic physical and mental health services, and deficient basic life skills. Through commonsense and cost effective measures, it offers a second chance for ex-offenders, and the children and families that depend on them, and it strengthens our communities and ensures safe neighborhoods.

The Second Chance Act provides a competitive grant program to study current approaches to reducing recidivism rates. It also provides grants for the development and implementation of comprehensive substance abuse treatment programs, academic and vocational education programs, housing and job counseling programs, and mentoring for offenders who are approaching release and who have been released. To ensure accountability, the bill requires grantees to establish performance goals and benchmarks and report the results to Congress.

The bill authorizes $192 million per year in competitive grant funding. This represents an investment in our future and an acknowledgement of the problem we face. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds $20,000 per year, with expenditures on corrections alone having increased from $9 billion in 1982 to $60 billion in 2002. That's more than a six-fold increase, and the costs keep going up.

A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts today is far more cost-effective than the alternative--building more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they can't reenter their communities and are convicted of further crimes. An ounce of prevention, as the saying goes, is worth a pound of cure.

I'm proud today to join with Senator Specter, Senator Brownback, and Senator Leahy in introducing the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act and ask that our colleagues join with us in this vital effort. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Heroes at Home Act of 2007, the Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act of 2007, and the Protecting Military Family Financial Benefits Act of 2007 to serve our servicemembers and send a message: you will be treated as heroes before deployment, during deployment, and upon returning home. You didn't offer excuses and do not deserve to be offered excuses by your country.

I want to thank Senator Collins for co-sponsoring the Heroes at Home Act of 2007 and for partnering with me on numerous pieces of legislation and initiatives related to these and other important health issues.

This is a moment of profound challenge for our country, for our military, and for our men and women in uniform. And while there are often strong disagreements here in Washington, I hope we can unite around our common values and patriotism when it comes to how we treat our servicemembers and veterans.

If you serve your country your country should serve you. That is the promise our country must keep to the men and women who enlist, who fight, and who return home often bearing the visible and invisible scars of sacrifice. Sadly, too often in the past several years, that promise has been broken: whether it's a lack of up-armored vehicles on the ground in Iraq or a lack of appropriate care in outpatient facilities at Walter Reed.

Last year, I authored and passed into law the Heroes at Home initiative to assist returning servicemembers experiencing the complex, diffuse, and life-altering symptoms of traumatic brain injury and other mental health difficulties.

One out of every 10 returning servicemembers are affected by traumatic brain injury (TBI), which has been widely identified as the ``signature wound'' of the Global War on Terror. This includes severe injuries as well as invisible wounds that result in trouble remembering appointments, holding down a job, and returning to civilian life. Unfortunately, troops have an increased risk of sustaining more than one mild or moderate TBI because of multiple deployments and the prevalent use of Improved Explosive Devices by enemy combatants in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. However, mild and moderate TBI may go undetected, especially if the servicemember has sustained more obvious injuries. Further, it can be difficult to distinguish mild TBI from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder since both conditions have common symptoms, such as irritability, anxiety and depression. Although many wounded

servicemembers receive cognitive evaluations upon returning from deployment, the lack of a baseline test conducted prior to the injury leads these servicemembers to question the validity of their post- deployment assessments.

When I visited Walter Reed a few weeks ago, I met a young Army soldier who had lost one arm and lost his ring finger because his wedding band had melted onto it. I asked him how he was doing, and he said, ``You know, I'm working hard at my rehabilitation and they're taking great care of me with my prosthetics.''

He said, ``but what really bothers me is my memory. I don't have the focus that I used to have. I can't really set out tasks and know that I can accomplish them.'' And he said, ``That's the thing that really bothers me I've got to have my brain back.''

His story, and the stories of hundreds of other servicemembers like him, demonstrates that we need to do more to help rapid identification of traumatic brain injury in order to facilitate the best care once the servicemembers return home, and expand support systems for members and former members of the Armed Services with traumatic brain injury and their families.

That's why I, along with Senator Collins, am introducing the Heroes at Home Act of 2007 today, to build on last year's Heroes at Home initiative. I am grateful to have developed this proposal with the Wounded Warrior Project, the National Military Family Association, the Military Officers Association of America, and the American Academy of Neurology.

We should provide pre-deployment cognitive screening to better diagnose and treat traumatic brain injury when these men and women return home. This legislation will improve detection of mild and moderate TBI by implementing an objective, computer-based assessment protocol to measure cognitive functioning both prior to and after deployment. This baseline test will help detect mild and moderate cases of TBI and distinguish them from PTSD. My legislation will also require that the same assessment tool be used across all branches of the 6yArmed Services and for every member of the Armed Forces who will be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

We should also help families take care of a loved one by providing them with training to become certified caregivers, so that they can receive compensation for care giving they already provide. Family members of returning soldiers with TBI are often ill-equipped to handle the demands of caring for their loved one, which in some bases can become a full-time responsibility. My legislation will establish a Traumatic Brain Injury Family Caregiver Personal Care Attendant Training and Certification Program, which would train and certify family caregivers of TBI patients as personal care attendants, enabling them to provide quality care at home and at the same time qualify for compensation from the VA.

Finally, we should explore new ways to treat TBI in rural settings and outpatient clinics through telemedicine. Servicemembers and veterans continue to face problems in accessing needed medical and mental health care, especially veterans or Guard and Reserve members who live in rural areas. The Heroes at Home Act of 2007 will help increase the reach of needed care for TBI by creating a demonstration project, administered jointly by the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs that would use telehealth technology to assess TBI and related mental health conditions and facilitate rehabilitation and dissemination of educational material on techniques, strategies and skills for servicemembers with TBI.

On March 6, 2007 Chief of Staff of the Army General Peter Schoomaker and the then Army Surgeon General Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that soldiers appearing before the Physical Evaluation Board were ``short-changed'' and had not received appropriate disability benefits. According to the Congressional Research Service, since the enactment of the Traumatic Servicemembers Group Life Insurance program at least 45 percent of claims have been denied. In March 2006 the Comptroller General issued GAO Report 06-362: Military Disability System: Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure Consistent and Timely Outcomes for Reserve and Active Duty Service Members--the Department of Defense did not heed the recommendations provided in this report and as a result injured and wounded warriors continue to languish in an inefficient and adversarial disability system.

I am also introducing legislation to fix the disability benefits system for our wounded warriors. When I've visited Walter Reed, one common thread uniting the problems is the disjointed and unfair process for evaluating disabilities. There were only three lawyers and one paralegal assigned to Walter Reed's entire evaluation process. Compare that to 4,000 Army JAG lawyers assigned to active duty, the National Guard, and the Reserves.

The ``Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act of 2007'' will restore disability benefits for wounded and injured members of the Armed Forces. The act will direct reviews of disability claims, traumatic injury claims, and the Physical Evaluation Board process. Additionally, the ``Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act of 2007'' will increase the availability of legal counsel for members appealing their disability cases, and direct the Comptroller General to provide a follow up report on the efforts currently being made by the Department of Defense to address certain deficiencies in the Disability Evaluation Systems; the adequacy of the Department of Veterans Affairs Disability Schedule for Ratings as it relates to the nature of wounds our warriors suffer in combat today; and to report on the standards and procedures of Physical Evaluation Boards.

So I am proposing an up-and-down review of previously-denied cases and failed appeals, an independent review of traumatic injury claims under the Traumatic Servicemembers Group Life Insurance program where up to 45 percent of claims have been denied, and a fix to ensure members have the proper liaison and legal assistance when appearing before the Physical Evaluation Board. We must stop short-changing our wounded warriors.

Finally, I am introducing the Protecting Military Family Financial Benefits Act of 2007 to close gaps in coverage for the Death Gratuity and Survivor Benefits beneficiaries and improve pre-deployment counseling and services for all members of the Armed Forces.

Every day single-parents deploy to distant battlefields and leave their minor children in the care of a financially ill-prepared guardian or caretaker. Unfortunately, when tragedy strikes and a military servicemember makes the ultimate sacrifice, minor dependent children and families are excluded from benefits and entitlements. In too many cases pre-deployment counseling and help are under-funded or unavailable.

These provisions will add an option for members of the Armed Forces to designate guardians or caretakers as a beneficiary for Death Gratuity benefits for care of dependent children and to receive annuities under the Survivor Benefit Plan for care of dependent children. These options do not exist under current law.

The Department of Defense will be required to commission an independent panel to review and assess military pre-deployment counseling and services, and implement recommended changes and best practices within 120 days of receiving the report. This review will include pre-deployment counseling and services available for unmarried members of the Armed Forces with dependent children, unmarried single members without dependent children, and married members with or without dependent children.

Specifically, what level of counseling or services are available for these members to maximize financial protections for the proper care of their surviving dependents under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, Death Gratuity, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, Survivor Benefits Plan, and benefits payable under the Social Security Act.

The review will include the preparation and maintenance of Family Care Plans for single-parents including elements for such plans relating to death

benefits, wills, powers of attorney, trusts, safeguarding of the plan during deployment, and the acknowledgement of specific guardian and caretaker duties relating to use of financial benefits for the care of minor dependent children.

Finally, this review will determine the adequate level of resources available at military pre-deployment centers including: the availability of legal and financial counseling, training level of pre- deployment counselors, Family Support Group involvement, availability of PTSD screening, and availability of suicide prevention counseling.

Let us all join together in accepting our responsibility as a nation to those who serve and resolve to improve their care for traumatic brain injuries, reform their disability benefits, and fix their survivor benefits.

I ask unanimous consent letters of support for this legislation be printed in the Record.